reverendsteveii
Joined 1,449 karma
- reverendsteveiiour industry has existed on the cutting edge doing what's hard since its inception. it's just that there was a time when sending a piece of text across a wire was hard. Now that's easy, so we do more with the tools that make that easy. When what's hard today becomes easy we'll do that quickly with the tools that make it easy and then do more hard stuff. We can say we've achieved AGI when the tools are doing better on their own than a tool plus an engineer would do, and I think that's a long way off.
- if you're LOOKing for a MOVIE or a tv show 2 download and you don't want to mess with DOT TOrrent files then there are plenty of options but it's generally considered uncouth to link to them publicly and directly
- what about everyone who uses Brady's system and also isn't the best? Does that refute Brady's system? Why choose the arbitrary cutoff point of top 5? Why focus on being the best when you'll definitely fail instead of focusing on being your best? If Brady could've been better if only he'd had a better rival does that indict this system?
- This doesn't preclude that though. Maybe it's because I'm a weightlifter and while we compete with one another we really don't, but my own numbers can be my rival. In fact, they're a much more effective rival than anyone else at the gym because they can never be permanently beaten, they can never retire, they will always demand more. If I wake up tomorrow and through some miracle I'm the best weightlifter on earth and can bench a 1000 pounds, 1005 pounds exists whether someone else can lift that much or not. If you're Tom Brady you don't need Peyton Manning in order to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions, you need to throw more touchdowns and fewer interceptions. If your rival has a career-ending injury does that define your pinnacle? Not if you're actually in competition with yourself it doesn't.
- thesis: every champion needs a rival to draw out the best in them
antithesis: there is nothing about the existence of any other person that changes what my best is or whether I deliver it
potential synthesis: I am my own perfect rival. I am right at my skill level, my career is a perfect parallel to my own, I don't need to look outside myself for a reason to improve and I can always do a little better than I did last time.
- capitalists have rivals, but capitalism does not
- We compare QBs because QBs are comparable. It's really difficult to build a narrative around the number of passes one person completes vs the number of tackles a different person dishes out to different people on different teams, but very easy and meaningful to compare completion percentages for two quarterbacks. It's also because QB is considered a leadership and decision-making role moreso than any other position on the field, and so the overall performance of the offense tends to be attributed to the team as a whole but the QBs are compared on the decisions they make on the field and the rest of the offensive units are compared on their ability to execute those decisions.
- I agree, but hackernews is evidently taking his side because any time I try to reply I get told I'm posting too often, even when its been hours since my last post.
- well yeah if you claim a war is justified because there have been wars between people in that area then every war is justified because warfare has been happening everywhere there have been humans since humans arrived
- wild cuz it was sorta the rest of the world that started the "Semitic tribal warfare"
- we're precedenting it in the united states. our government is deeply ideologically aligned with the people committing the vast majority of domestic terrorism in this country.
- That's where I first learned about them.
NO SMOKING. NO SPITTING. MGMT
- Then it makes an awful lot of sense to get that service for free/at a one-time cost until their marketing team sobers up, doesn't it? It's only a bait and switch if they switch before I get the bait.
- steamed bread has been a thing for centuries but this is a neat trick
- I already avoid devices that require subscription rather than allowing ownership. If someone decides to change the terms of the deal after I bought the device to gate previously accessible functionality behind a paywall I guarantee that they will never see another nickel of mine for the rest of our shared existence on this earth. I don't actually care that your costs exceed your revenue. Shut down then. It's your problem to price things in a way that pays for your costs as a business, not mine, and it's your problem to uphold agreements you made or to fail as a business.
- interviews should be about determining whether you can use the tools available to deliver the desired product, not some sort of purity test to determine whether you can build without tools. also I want to see you interact w AI because as of right now it's both an incredible and deeply flawed tool and your ability to recognize when it's about to walk you off a cliff is of increasing importance as we discover the limits of what it can do.
- yeah, we're getting wartime government when it comes to AI. we're getting government of endless special cases, "here's why the law shouldn't apply this time" every time
- >It definitely feels like a "too big to fail" scenario at this stage
The courts are just reading the room. If you're a judge appointed by a guy who wants it to be illegal to regulate AI at all, you're not gonna be too keen on regulating AI.
- This might not be the right way to highlight it but I personally am very interested in the ways in which the proscribed penalties for breaking the law greatly diverge from the actual penalties inflicted, with the variance being directly correlated to the offender's budget for legal defense. Doubly so because giving one appointed official the final say over actual community members kinda feels like an inversion of the way our government claims to work and a backdoor implementation of a different laws for different people.
- I've been told that my rainbow flag lapel pin is anti-Christian hate. This opinion seems to be gaining in popularity. If society decides this is the case, which some elements of society are currently making a concerted effort to see through with dozens of bills across dozens of states, is it incumbent upon me to accept it?
Right now in Europe there are people arguing that it's fundamental to the nature of Islam that adherents hate anyone who is not Islamic. They can cite Quran saying some pretty horrendous stuff about non-believers, that they need to be killed in a holy war and things like that. Is it within the bounds of society to decide that being Islamic is ipso facto a hate crime?